Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal has recently stated that the government will hold consultations with all stakeholders before making a final decision on the sedition law.
The Minister emphasized that the recommendations provided in the report are persuasive but not binding.
In a tweet, Meghwal mentioned, “The law commission report on Sedition is one of the steps in the extensive consultative process. The recommendations made in the report are persuasive and not binding. Ultimately, the final decision will be taken only after consulting all the stakeholders.”
He further added, “Now that we have received the report, we will also hold consultations with all the other stakeholders so that we take an informed and reasoned decision in the public interest.”
The Law Commission of India has supported the retention of the Sedition law (Section 124A of IPC) in the system, citing the need to address “internal security threats” and prevent offenses against the state. However, the commission also suggested the introduction of certain amendments to the provisions.
The commission’s report highlighted the role of social media in propagating radicalization against India and inciting hatred towards the government, often with the involvement of foreign powers. This underscores the necessity of maintaining the Section 124A.
Referring to Sedition as a “reasonable restriction” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the Law Commission emphasized that the Supreme Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A. The commission stated that other laws, such as the UAPA and NSA, contain more stringent provisions aimed at safeguarding the state.
However, the commission dismissed the argument that the colonial origin of the sedition law should be a valid ground for its repeal, noting that the entire legal framework of India can’t be rejected solely based on its colonial origins. It further emphasized that each country has its own set of realities, and the sedition law should not be repealed simply because other countries have done so.
It further stated that, other laws contain much more stringent provisions.”
The Commission also said that just because the law is from ‘colonial’ times, it is not a “valid ground” for its repeal.
It further stated, “If sedition is considered to be a colonial-era law, then by that virtue, the entire framework of the Indian legal system is a colonial legacy. The mere fact that a legal provision is colonial in its origin doesn’t ipso facto validate the case for its repeal.”
It further added that every country has to grapple with its “own set of realities” and the sedition law “should not be repealed” merely because other countries have done so.
In its report, the Law Commission recommended amendments to the provision, including mandatory preliminary investigation, procedural safeguards, and revisions in punishment.
The implementation of the Supreme Court’s Kedar Nath judgment was suggested for bringing clarity in the interpretation and usage of the sedition law. The commission also proposed the inclusion of a tendency to incite violence or public disorder as a requirement for sedition charges.
The constitutionality of Section 124A was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Union of India assured the apex court that it was re-evaluating the provision, and the court directed the central and state governments to refrain from registering new FIRs or taking coercive measures related to sedition. Pending trials, appeals, and proceedings were also put on hold.
